Eagles had 21 players on their team that they drafted. Patriots had even less with 19.

Merely looking over these teams offenses would make a "build through the draft" fanatic's head explode. While we're at it, we had a game with over 1000 yards of offense and a single sack, so tell me about how defense wins championships?

At the end of the day, FA, draft, offense, defense, franchise QB, back up QB, there are clearly many ways to get it done.

Doctor wrote:Eagles had 21 players on their team that they drafted. Patriots had even less with 19.

Merely looking over these teams offenses would make a "build through the draft" fanatic's head explode. While we're at it, we had a game with over 1000 yards of offense and a single sack, so tell me about how defense wins championships?

At the end of the day, FA, draft, offense, defense, franchise QB, back up QB, there are clearly many ways to get it done.

The game deciding play was that sack-strip. If anything, I think it argues strongly that yes, even in shootouts, defense wins championships.

Doctor wrote:Eagles had 21 players on their team that they drafted. Patriots had even less with 19.

Merely looking over these teams offenses would make a "build through the draft" fanatic's head explode. While we're at it, we had a game with over 1000 yards of offense and a single sack, so tell me about how defense wins championships?

At the end of the day, FA, draft, offense, defense, franchise QB, back up QB, there are clearly many ways to get it done.

The game deciding play was that sack-strip. If anything, I think it argues strongly that yes, even in shootouts, defense wins championships.

They are many ways to built a great team. Ideally you build your team's foundation on drafted players and add in missing pieces via free-agency because of salary cap constraints and familiarity with the organization, building your team as a cohesive unit over multiple seasons, etc. but it doesn't always work that way.

Defense is an increasingly important part of the game. More and more offenses will have the ability to score at-will; it will be the teams that can prevent that from happening in the end that will many times be the deciding factor, like last night.

Doctor wrote:Eagles had 21 players on their team that they drafted. Patriots had even less with 19.

Merely looking over these teams offenses would make a "build through the draft" fanatic's head explode. While we're at it, we had a game with over 1000 yards of offense and a single sack, so tell me about how defense wins championships?

At the end of the day, FA, draft, offense, defense, franchise QB, back up QB, there are clearly many ways to get it done.

The game deciding play was that sack-strip. If anything, I think it argues strongly that yes, even in shootouts, defense wins championships.

By that logic, **** offense and defense- Special Teams win championships. Take a kicker in the first!

Doctor wrote:Eagles had 21 players on their team that they drafted. Patriots had even less with 19.

Merely looking over these teams offenses would make a "build through the draft" fanatic's head explode. While we're at it, we had a game with over 1000 yards of offense and a single sack, so tell me about how defense wins championships?

At the end of the day, FA, draft, offense, defense, franchise QB, back up QB, there are clearly many ways to get it done.

The game deciding play was that sack-strip. If anything, I think it argues strongly that yes, even in shootouts, defense wins championships.

Doctor wrote:Eagles had 21 players on their team that they drafted. Patriots had even less with 19.

Merely looking over these teams offenses would make a "build through the draft" fanatic's head explode. While we're at it, we had a game with over 1000 yards of offense and a single sack, so tell me about how defense wins championships?

At the end of the day, FA, draft, offense, defense, franchise QB, back up QB, there are clearly many ways to get it done.

How many of those free agents were on offense and how many were on defense?

Doctor wrote:By that logic, **** offense and defense- Special Teams win championships. Take a kicker in the first!

Your talent for hyperbole is approaching Bootzian levels.

As is your if you are using "well the 'game winning play' was on defense so defense wins champions" after a pathetic defensive showing in a shoot out. Like really? Really? There's a reason the "game winning play" isn't what's used to decide what wins championships, because if you were dumb enough to do that you'd end up with Special Teams.

The weirdest thing about the Eagles is how they were able to run the ball no matter who was in the game. It's almost like if you have a great line, you'll be able to run the ball. Ajayi, Blount, Clement, Smallwood - they were all able to produce.

So, about this idea we should fix our running game by drafting a running back at #7...

MJW wrote:The weirdest thing about the Eagles is how they were able to run the ball no matter who was in the game. It's almost like if you have a great line, you'll be able to run the ball. Ajayi, Blount, Clement, Smallwood - they were all able to produce.

So, about this idea we should fix our running game by drafting a running back at #7...

You'll get no argument from me. I've been a champion of fixing the OL over drafting a high round RB since before we drafted Winston. I was one that was hoping we'd trade down in the Winston draft and reap picks that could possibly have been used to build up both the OL and the DL. I'd like to see a trade down this draft if it could net a team's 2nd this year and their 1st next year. I get that OL isn't the sexy pick, but I'm damned envious of the teams that have really good OL's. Eagles. Rams. Steelers. Saints (yes...the f'n Saints!). Cowboys. Others??

MJW wrote:The weirdest thing about the Eagles is how they were able to run the ball no matter who was in the game. It's almost like if you have a great line, you'll be able to run the ball. Ajayi, Blount, Clement, Smallwood - they were all able to produce.

So, about this idea we should fix our running game by drafting a running back at #7...

You'll get no argument from me. I've been a champion of fixing the OL over drafting a high round RB since before we drafted Winston. I was one that was hoping we'd trade down in the Winston draft and reap picks that could possibly have been used to build up both the OL and the DL. I'd like to see a trade down this draft if it could net a team's 2nd this year and their 1st next year. I get that OL isn't the sexy pick, but I'm damned envious of the teams that have really good OL's. Eagles. Rams. Steelers. Saints (yes...the f'n Saints!). Cowboys. Others??

This is why, even though I have (unrelated) misgivings about a guard at #7, I'll be fine with it three seconds after the pick. Gotta build that line!

Buc2 wrote:You'll get no argument from me. I've been a champion of fixing the OL over drafting a high round RB since before we drafted Winston. I was one that was hoping we'd trade down in the Winston draft and reap picks that could possibly have been used to build up both the OL and the DL. I'd like to see a trade down this draft if it could net a team's 2nd this year and their 1st next year. I get that OL isn't the sexy pick, but I'm damned envious of the teams that have really good OL's. Eagles. Rams. Steelers. Saints (yes...the f'n Saints!). Cowboys. Others??

This is why, even though I have (unrelated) misgivings about a guard at #7, I'll be fine with it three seconds after the pick. Gotta build that line!

Yup. I've said it a million times- if you have a good QB, a good oline, and a good dline you're going to win a lot of games.

MJW wrote:The weirdest thing about the Eagles is how they were able to run the ball no matter who was in the game. It's almost like if you have a great line, you'll be able to run the ball. Ajayi, Blount, Clement, Smallwood - they were all able to produce.

So, about this idea we should fix our running game by drafting a running back at #7...

I'm all for taking Nelson at 7 over Barkley. But in the event that Nelson and Fitz are gone, Barkley is the next BPA. To deny Barkley 7 just because you build from the inside out is ridiculous.

MJW wrote:The weirdest thing about the Eagles is how they were able to run the ball no matter who was in the game. It's almost like if you have a great line, you'll be able to run the ball. Ajayi, Blount, Clement, Smallwood - they were all able to produce.

So, about this idea we should fix our running game by drafting a running back at #7...

I'm all for taking Nelson at 7 over Barkley. But in the event that Nelson and Fitz are gone, Barkley is the next BPA. To deny Barkley 7 just because you build from the inside out is ridiculous.

Please re-visit last year's debate with RBF about the problems with drafting a running back high. I don't feel like re-posting it all.

MJW wrote:The weirdest thing about the Eagles is how they were able to run the ball no matter who was in the game. It's almost like if you have a great line, you'll be able to run the ball. Ajayi, Blount, Clement, Smallwood - they were all able to produce.

So, about this idea we should fix our running game by drafting a running back at #7...

I'm all for taking Nelson at 7 over Barkley. But in the event that Nelson and Fitz are gone, Barkley is the next BPA. To deny Barkley 7 just because you build from the inside out is ridiculous.

If Barkley is there at seven, I’d trade down.

Not because I hate high picking a RB; but because we ARE that bad in the trenches; and there’s a few guys in the 25-40 range that would do more to improve the team than a running back would.

Look at the playoff teams this year for evidence of what strong line play gets you.

Doctor wrote:I'm all for taking Nelson at 7 over Barkley. But in the event that Nelson and Fitz are gone, Barkley is the next BPA. To deny Barkley 7 just because you build from the inside out is ridiculous.

If Barkley is there at seven, I’d trade down.

Not because I hate high picking a RB; but because we ARE that bad in the trenches; and there’s a few guys in the 25-40 range that would do more to improve the team than a running back would.

Look at the playoff teams this year for evidence of what strong line play gets you.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner. Of course, that would obviously depend on what the trade offer was. Imo, anything less than swapping this year's 1st + acquiring their 2nd and their 2018 #1, no deal. Then you take your chances at #7 overall (still not Barkley though) and move on.

Doctor wrote:I'm all for taking Nelson at 7 over Barkley. But in the event that Nelson and Fitz are gone, Barkley is the next BPA. To deny Barkley 7 just because you build from the inside out is ridiculous.

If Barkley is there at seven, I’d trade down.

Not because I hate high picking a RB; but because we ARE that bad in the trenches; and there’s a few guys in the 25-40 range that would do more to improve the team than a running back would.

Look at the playoff teams this year for evidence of what strong line play gets you.

YAS.

Especially in this draft, where there are a bunch of a really good OL prospects who'll go in the mid-late first and early 2nd.

Doctor wrote:I'm all for taking Nelson at 7 over Barkley. But in the event that Nelson and Fitz are gone, Barkley is the next BPA. To deny Barkley 7 just because you build from the inside out is ridiculous.

Please re-visit last year's debate with RBF about the problems with drafting a running back high. I don't feel like re-posting it all.

You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

Rocker wrote:

Doctor wrote:I'm all for taking Nelson at 7 over Barkley. But in the event that Nelson and Fitz are gone, Barkley is the next BPA. To deny Barkley 7 just because you build from the inside out is ridiculous.

If Barkley is there at seven, I’d trade down.

Not because I hate high picking a RB; but because we ARE that bad in the trenches; and there’s a few guys in the 25-40 range that would do more to improve the team than a running back would.

Look at the playoff teams this year for evidence of what strong line play gets you.

Which is great that we pick again before 40 then. And in case you missed it this offense was one dimensional and anaemic all year around. There were undoubtedly better positions that would have helped the Rams, Jaguars and Cowboys more than RB too, but I doubt anyone in either franchise would undo their picks. Yeah, I'm would be very upset if we Steven Jackson this draft all over again.